From: | Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Igor Kovalenko <Igor(dot)Kovalenko(at)motorola(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Roadmap for a Win32 port |
Date: | 2002-06-05 22:02:33 |
Message-ID: | 3CFE8A79.84738F2F@fourpalms.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
...
> Good summary. I think we would support both threaded and fork()
> operation, and users can control which they prefer. For a web backend
> where many sessions are a single query, people may want to give up the
> stability of fork() and go with threads, even on Unix.
I would think that we would build on our strengths of having a fork/exec
model for separate clients. A threaded model *could* benefit individual
clients who are doing queries on multiprocessor servers, and I would be
supportive of efforts to enable that.
But the requirements for that may be less severe than for managing
multiple clients within the same process, and imho there is not strong
requirement to enable the latter for our current crop of well supported
targets. If it came for free then great, but if it came with a high cost
then the choice is not as obvious. It is also not a *requirement* if we
were instead able to do the multiple threads for a single client
scenerio first.
- Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2002-06-05 22:09:29 | Re: Roadmap for a Win32 port |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-06-05 20:45:08 | Re: Operator Comments |